Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The Coffee Party, the liberal response to the conservative Tea Party movement, is in the midst of wrapping up the early registration phase for its upcoming National Convention in Louisville, Kentucky.

The event, scheduled to take place on September 24 through the 26 at the Galt House Conference Center in Louisville, is billed as a chance "to reset the national dialogue so that we can address the challenges that we face as fellow Americans instead of partisans in a spectator sport."

How can they claim to be both non-partisan AND the liberal response to the conservative Tea Party? I'm thinking about going...until then, I'll try not to pass judgement.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Everyone is guilty of saying something stupid from time to time. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I said something stupid, I’d be as rich as John Yarmuth--well, maybe not quite as rich.

But, as a patriot, I don't make comments about the limits of government lightly. The Constitution is sacred, and freedom warrants the utmost respect.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the philosophy of our representatives. First, when asked about the limits of the commerce clause by one of his California constituents, Congressman Pete Stark said that the federal government “can do almost anything in this country".

What a stupid thing to say. This is a statement that should get you jailed. Yet, somehow, Congressman Yarmuth missed this embarrassment.

When responding to a similar question on the limits of the commerce clause, Yarmuth said, “It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do.”

Monday, August 23, 2010

According to Rasmussen, 48% of voters think Obama is an extremist. That is an incredible percentage.

In July, a poll by the Democracy Corps found that 55% of voters think the word "socialist" applies to Obama. Although it's good news that Americans are finally waking up, I sure hope that doesn't mean 7% of Americans think that being a socialist is not extreme.

On Saturday, some supporters of candidate Todd Lally assembled outside the Courier Journal to protest the CJ's obvious media bias for Congress John Yarmuth. From the Courier Journal:

Approximately 65 supporters of Republican nominee Todd Lally’s bid the 3rd District seat in Congress protested outside The Courier-Journal building for an hour Saturday morning, saying the newspaper is not being fair to the candidate.

“We want to protest the non-coverage of the 3rd District race,” said Kevin Dicken, 50, of Fern Creek, a volunteer with the Lally campaign. Lally “represents what I think this country needs” on issues such as health care, the economy and abortion.

The protesters contended the newspaper’s coverage is biased toward Democrats, and, in 3rd District race in particular, has written eight stories about the Democratic incumbent, John Yarmuth, for every story it has written about Lally.

I was surprised to see the CJ cover the protest, but even more surprised that the protest received attention from the national blogosphere. In particular, Hullabaloo wrote some harsh criticism of the protesters and even compared the conservative protest to Woodstock. According to the blogger:

They are living out their angry Woodstock fantasy pretty much everywhere these days. (Yes, Beck's calling his "Triumph of the Wingnut" event Woodstock too.) They are hoping for a bunch of liberals to spray them with fire hoses and scream at them on the way to church just so they can really have their midlife crisis in style....

...They're just upset about everything these days and they're taking it to the streets!

The paper explained that they strive to be "fair and balanced" but that they can't cover every campaign event. (If they're like most members of the press, they'll immediately assign a full time reporter to the GOP campaigns now that a bunch of angry, middle aged white people have expressed their inner Abby Hoffman. So you can't say it isn't effective.)

I'm waiting for the Joseph Kraft of today to have the blinding insight that these people are not mainstream and that it's the working and middle class moderate liberal who represents the silent majority. I suppose the first question is, who's the next Joseph Kraft/David Broder?

So, now, every time a group of people congregate, for any reason, it’s Woodstock? The picture painted by mentioning Woodstock is 180 degrees from the truth considering most tea partiers are huge supporters of family values. He could have at least refer to conservative protests as Woodstock minus the drugs, sex, and violence—but, then it wouldn’t be anything like Woodstock, would it?

The author thinks that tea partiers are some sort of fringe group (but Woodstock liberals are okay?) He's obviously never attended a tea party rally, so perhaps I should forgive his ignorance.

Personally, I think the tea party may be the greatest thing to happen to this country since Ronald Reagan (who was the greatest thing since sliced bread). But, suggesting I'm some sort of fringe lunatic would be giving me way too credit in the "interesting" department--I'm just not that exciting. And, tea partiers are no more fringe than those who stood up for freedom in the Revolutionary War.

The reason the author considers tea partiers to be outside the realm of mainstream America is because the press paints them as racist, closed-minded, right-wing extremists. The blogger's entire opinion is based off media bias, which is exactly what Saturday's group was protesting.

Monday, August 16, 2010

Spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ibrahim Hooper, showed CAIR's true colors in their mission regarding American-Islamic relations.

Hooper bashed the Republican Party and the tea party for not submitting to the Ground Zero mosque. According to Politico, Hooper blames the "tea party movement [for] liberating the inner bigot in people."

But, in November of 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, Hooper was asked if he would condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and he replied, "It's not our job to go around denouncing." A few months later, Hooper tried to explain his comments by saying, "We're not in the business of condemning."

So, according to Hooper, Jihadists targeting and killing civilians on US soil is not worthy of condemnation; but people expressing sympathy for 9/11 victims, and getting ticked off (nonviolently) at the idea of then building a mosque at the attack site, is bigotry worthy of condemnation.

The mosque, supposedy purposed to promote peace, has already failed in its so-called mission and it's not even built yet. If they want to promote peace, they should get a clue that this is not the way to do it. Their persistence suggests they have other motives.

If CAIR really cares about American-Islamic relations, they'd suggest the builders of the mosque step back and say, "Sorry, we didn't mean to be insensitive; we'll build somewhere else." But, they don't want good relations with us--they want to use our own laws against us to cram their religion down our throats, and smack us in the face with their jihadist victories.

Friday, August 6, 2010

The most recent newsletter from the Tea Party Nation linked to an article about gay marriage. The author argued linguistics and definition as a reason to deny gay citizens from having the same rights to marriage as straight citizens.

I am extremely disappointed in the leaders of Tea Party Nation who have "Quench your thirst for freedom" as the tag line to their newsletters. They must mean THEIR definition of freedom. They claim to support limited government and emphasis citizens' rights, but only as far as THEY want that freedom to go. What gives them the right to say "this should be free, but that shouldn't?" It is the Constitution that should determine our freedoms, and the Constitution does not address marriage.

This is one area where I agree with the Libertarian platform. All laws regulating the consensual sexual acts of adults have no place in a "free" country. The government doesn't even have the right to outlaw prostitution (prostitutes are providing a service). Why is it illegal to have sex with someone for money unless you film it and sell the video?

The arguments against same-sex marriage are largely the same as those arguments used by the Democratic Party to stop blacks from being freed from slavery, granted citizenship, or given voting rights. It puts gay people into a category as second class citizens.

I really like what these gay tea partiers have to say from BigGovernment.com. They basically want the government out of marriage. They look at it more as a contract you enter, which the Constitution does include. They also discuss how much they are discriminated against at gay bars for being conservatives, but have never been treated with anything but respect as gay men at a tea party.

I'm sure I will take a lot of flack for this post to which I say, bring it on. I love free speech.

I know one argument will be that the people of California voted against it; so, the judge should not overturn a law embraced by the majority, and against the will of the people. But, at one time, the majority believed that blacks should be denied certain rights. The majority does not have a right to decide when we just ignore the Constitution. All men are created equal--not just when the majority wants them to be.

(Disclosure statement: I have met the President of Tea Party Nation and she is a lovely person. They also featured my book in one of their newsletters, for which I am grateful. In general, I agree with their ideas and beliefs. I hope their linking to an anti-gay marriage article was an attempt to show one point of view, and that they allow for free speech from people on both sides of the gay marriage argument. I would encourage them to link to the other side of that argument in their next newsletter.)